Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

Good points. I’ve heard several people say that the data sets are too small to say much conclusively. The link given sometime back by Biv was by a guy who was looking into genetic differences race for the benefit of medicine. Basically people get extremely squimish with this subject and general infer a malevolent agenda.

I don’t see any ill intent with what Harris says. He just seems a little short-sighted on some matters. I cannot say he doesn’t try to understand though even if he seems (at least to me) often way off target in certain debates. Murray I’m not sure about. He does seem to double down and defend his positions yet the last time I listened to him he seemed to have dropped most of his usual signature rants about Islam and such and seemed far more collected than before.

I’ll read the article this weekend. I personally think it is important to address genetic factors of ‘g’ in order to better understand how humans function and learn. Given that both “race” and “IQ” are barely understood in terms of genetics it doesn’t seem sensible to take anything meaningful as hard evidence to propose x or y.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

I cannot say I agree with his opinion on the subject. For me it is a case of people like him refusing to bend to what is deemed appropriate or not.

If prominent scientists in the field keep their mouths shut then it merely leave the field of data open to interpretation. Misquotes will happen - maybe more so given the availability of misquotes and misrepresentation online - and people will read what they want to read and express disgust, agreement, concern or whatever given their current mood and take on the subject.

I find it quite hypocritical when people protesting about IQ say “intelligence isn’t the most important thing about being human”. Such words are biased because they assume anyone talking about intelligence are trying to belittle and demean people with apparent lower intelliegence. Yet ironically they are willing to call racists stupid and suffer from the seeming false belief/assumption that bad people are necessarily stupid (note: I do belief myself that human life is best lived by helping rather than hindering, so in part I would say a certain part of myself says that being “smart” means allowing yourself to be vulnerable and open to helping others, of sacrifice - but I’m talking about speculate on a level that cannot be reasonably measured, it’s just a moral position I choose).

I have to admit I learnt a lot from Sapolsky. It was watching his lectures that triggered this thread. The constant swinging of ideas in behavioural biology says it all. You often have two, or more, opposing parties and theories based roughly on some assumption about ye olde nature or nurture dichotomy. It is a useful dichotic partition yet it seems implausible in reality to adhere to completely to one side or the other - thus the agenda driven set out to sift through the data and scientific studies in order to find some evidence to back up their ideas. Sadly not being massively scientific about this they fail to address any opposing speculation.

In short, it is the fault of individuals in how they manage the subject matter at hand. Realistically everyone suffers frkm a degree of blinkeredness and generally speaking I do believe those of reasonable resolve will adjust their views. Some won’t. Hindering the messy progression of some in order to avoid agenda driven ideologies isn’t, as far as I can see, ever worth the trade off.

I should add that in the article above what he says is not completely unbiased. I can see he picks words to suit his current mood (and perhaps disgust with some abhorrent rants by people who use the placid words of some in the limelight to bolster their superiority complexes). As an example he says their is no racial difference, yet he fails to address the manner in which the term “race” is used in common parse; which I addressed in this thread early on. Their are genetic differences. There isn’t a singular genetist worth anything who’d claim otherwise I imagine. The MAIN concern is the loaded term “race”. What can the scientific community do here? Perhaps they could insist on setting out a specific term and pushing it into the media? How much this would help/hinder I’ve no idea? It is clear that some people have a very facile understanding of genetics and the term race; they may read a headline or sort article that is purposely set out to create controversy ... I guess there are limits to the impact that we can have and we just have to take it as it comes and correct misrepresentations cooly and calmly without shouting down at others and becoming a fan to the flames.

Personally I am glad it is a sensitive topic. It should be! There is a difference between being careful and saying nothing at all for fear of making things worse. It is great on another forum. Their is a guy who is unbelievably right leaning and something of a troll to boot. He selects articles and quotes expecting only fury and hatred. He gets a bit of that too, but generally people just pick his arguments apart and he then falls off-line for months before returning with more. It’s remarkable that it happens at all so openly and displays to me a lot of hope.

Speaking of which I just spotted a guy from the US who thinnks he can purify water on the other side of the globe by thought alone ... I managed to remain relatively level-headed last time I spoke to him. I admit though I kind of lost my patience when he started basically preaching to me and stopped listening.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

by PaulN on February 1st, 2019, 2:00 pm

Some good links. Meaningful genetic groups seem more tied to specific regions, e.g. Asian steppes or Sub-Saharan west Africa, than to some simplistic binary "black" or "white." Africa, per a National Geographic article I read a while back, actually is home to at least 30 distinct groups of people with considerable genetic variation. Those groupings have more bearing on recessive gene ailments and immunology than on intrinsic intellectual capacities. When the number one factor in mental development turns out to be pre-natal care and nutrition, and then post-natal care and nutrition, it's obviously time to move on to the more important task of understanding genetic markers for illness, food allergies, degenerative diseases, and so on.